High Court · 2025

The grievance of the petitioner is that, when the substantial vacancy arise under Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade from 30.06.1999, the sixth-respondent has made a request to the District Inspector of Schools, for approval which was later approved by District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 26.08.2002. The notification was issued for filling up of three vacancies. Pursuant to the said notification the petitioner has applied along with others and as the petitioner has got meritorious marks in the selection process, he got appointed on 24.09.2002 and the same was sent to the competent authority for approval. When the authorities have not passed any order on the appointment of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.29433 of 2004, the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2004, with the following directions. "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria is directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the appointment of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria." Pursuant to the said direction of this Court the authorities have passed an order dated 09.11.2004 rejecting the approval of the appointments. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No.55646 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2006, with the following directions:- "The only requirement under the above section is that persons must be duly qualified. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 09.11.2004 on the face of law is bad. The District Inspector of Schools has failed to examine the question whether the petitioner is qualified or not and possesses the requisite qualifications under Section 16(FF) of the Act. The reasons given in the impugned order have nothing to do with the requirement of Section 16(FF). The impugned order is therefore arbitrary and is set aside by this Court. The matter is remanded to the District Inspector of Schools for proper consideration to see whether the petitioner is duly qualified under the provisions of Section 16 (FF) of the Act and whether he can be given benefit of section 16(FF)." Based on the above directions the authorities have passed order on 23.12.2006, approving appointment of the petitioners and release of the salary from the issuance of the approval orders or the date of appointment whichever is earlier. As the petitioners are working from the date of appointment i.e. 24.09.2002 onwards. The petitioners are entitled for salary from the initial appointment and payment of salary from 24.09.2002 upto 13.11.2006. When the arrears were not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners have made representation before the authorities and the same was not considered by the authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ A No.61495 of 2012 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass an appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Consequently on the said directions the authorities have taken a decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds:- " उककननसकर यकचच शच सतययनद कन मकर ममश कक मनयममत वयतन भनगतकन अननममदन कय उपरकनत मकयक जक रहक हह। उसकय पपवर अनकननमममदत अवधध 24-9-2002 तक कक अवशयष मनयमकननसकर मदयक जकनक समभव नहह हह। सय नवमबर 2006 अतत ररट यकमचकक ससखयक-61495/2012 27-11-2012 मनहममद हहसहन इणटर ककलयज, नवलपनर, दयय न हमनय कय ककरर एतददकरक मनरसत मकयक जकतक हह।" मम पकररत मकन० उचच नयकयकलय कय मनररय मदनकसक सहकयक अधयकपक, दयवररयक कक उक पशगत अवशयष दययक मनयमकननसकर कय अननपकलन मम यकचचकतकर शच सतययनद कन मकर ममश, Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed. Grievance of the petitioner is that without any fault of the petitioner, the respondents have not paid salaries till 13.11.2006 as he was appointed by the fifth-respondent based on the merit, after due selection process and from the date of initial appointment the petitioner is been working continuously without any adverse remarks. When the petitioner is appointed by a due selection process and continuously working since then, and the delay of approval is done by the respondent, for that the petitioner claim for salaries cannot be denied from his initial appointment. It is admitted fact that when the respondents have not passed any orders within time the petitioner has approached this Court and at the interference of this Court the respondents have passed orders belatedly i.e. on 23.12.2006. Admittedly, in the instant case, approval order was made by the respondent belatedly on 23.12.2006 and in fact, the said order was passed in compliance of the order dated 25.09.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ No.55646 of 2004. Once approval order was passed on the direction of this Court, the respondents cannot take any further objection with regard to release of salary from the date of his initial appointment. As admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the Regional Level Committee in its meeting on 04.06.2003 has decided to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner that itself shows that the petitioner's appointment is valid and as per Rules. Once the petitioner was appointed and subjected to due process of selection, if any, delay occurred for approval of the said appointment, the petitioner's claim for salary from the date of initial appointment cannot be denied and there are no allegations either against the petitioner or against the management with regard to appointment of the petitioner in the said Institution. Under such circumstances, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to get salary from the date of his initial appointment till 30.11.2006. In view of the said circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the salary to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment from 24.09.2002 to 30.11.2006, within a period of six weeks from today. Based on the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 A Gautam ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

The grievance of the petitioner is that, when the substantial vacancy arise under Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade from 30.06.1999, the sixth-respondent has made a request to the District Inspector of Schools, for approval which was later approved by District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 26.08.2002. The notification was issued for filling up of three vacancies. Pursuant to the said notification the petitioner has applied along with others and as the petitioner has got meritorious marks in the selection process, he got appointed on 24.09.2002 and the same was sent to the competent authority for approval. When the authorities have not passed any order on the appointment of the petitioners, the petitioners have approached this Court in Writ Petition No.29433 of 2004, the same was disposed of vide order dated 30.07.2004, with the following directions. "In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria is directed to pass appropriate orders in respect of the appointment of the petitioner within a period of one month from the date, a certified copy of this order is produced by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria." Pursuant to the said direction of this Court the authorities have passed an order dated 09.11.2004 rejecting the approval of the appointments. Aggrieved by the said orders the petitioners have approached this Hon'ble Court by filing Writ Petition No.55646 of 2004. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.09.2006, with the following directions:- "The only requirement under the above section is that persons must be duly qualified. The impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 09.11.2004 on the face of law is bad. The District Inspector of Schools has failed to examine the question whether the petitioner is qualified or not and possesses the requisite qualifications under Section 16(FF) of the Act. The reasons given in the impugned order have nothing to do with the requirement of Section 16(FF). The impugned order is therefore arbitrary and is set aside by this Court. The matter is remanded to the District Inspector of Schools for proper consideration to see whether the petitioner is duly qualified under the provisions of Section 16 (FF) of the Act and whether he can be given benefit of section 16(FF)." Based on the above directions the authorities have passed order on 23.12.2006, approving appointment of the petitioners and release of the salary from the issuance of the approval orders or the date of appointment whichever is earlier. As the petitioners are working from the date of appointment i.e. 24.09.2002 onwards. The petitioners are entitled for salary from the initial appointment and payment of salary from 24.09.2002 upto 13.11.2006. When the arrears were not paid to the petitioners, the petitioners have made representation before the authorities and the same was not considered by the authorities, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing Writ A No.61495 of 2012 and the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent to consider and pass an appropriate orders within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a copy of this order. Consequently on the said directions the authorities have taken a decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner on the following grounds:- " उककननसकर यकचच शच सतययनद कन मकर ममश कक मनयममत वयतन भनगतकन अननममदन कय उपरकनत मकयक जक रहक हह। उसकय पपवर अनकननमममदत अवधध 24-9-2002 तक कक अवशयष मनयमकननसकर मदयक जकनक समभव नहह हह। सय नवमबर 2006 अतत ररट यकमचकक ससखयक-61495/2012 27-11-2012 मनहममद हहसहन इणटर ककलयज, नवलपनर, दयय न हमनय कय ककरर एतददकरक मनरसत मकयक जकतक हह।" मम पकररत मकन० उचच नयकयकलय कय मनररय मदनकसक सहकयक अधयकपक, दयवररयक कक उक पशगत अवशयष दययक मनयमकननसकर कय अननपकलन मम यकचचकतकर शच सतययनद कन मकर ममश, Aggrieved by the same the present writ petition has been filed. Grievance of the petitioner is that without any fault of the petitioner, the respondents have not paid salaries till 13.11.2006 as he was appointed by the fifth-respondent based on the merit, after due selection process and from the date of initial appointment the petitioner is been working continuously without any adverse remarks. When the petitioner is appointed by a due selection process and continuously working since then, and the delay of approval is done by the respondent, for that the petitioner claim for salaries cannot be denied from his initial appointment. It is admitted fact that when the respondents have not passed any orders within time the petitioner has approached this Court and at the interference of this Court the respondents have passed orders belatedly i.e. on 23.12.2006. Admittedly, in the instant case, approval order was made by the respondent belatedly on 23.12.2006 and in fact, the said order was passed in compliance of the order dated 25.09.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ No.55646 of 2004. Once approval order was passed on the direction of this Court, the respondents cannot take any further objection with regard to release of salary from the date of his initial appointment. As admitted by the respondents in the counter affidavit, the Regional Level Committee in its meeting on 04.06.2003 has decided to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner that itself shows that the petitioner's appointment is valid and as per Rules. Once the petitioner was appointed and subjected to due process of selection, if any, delay occurred for approval of the said appointment, the petitioner's claim for salary from the date of initial appointment cannot be denied and there are no allegations either against the petitioner or against the management with regard to appointment of the petitioner in the said Institution. Under such circumstances, this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to get salary from the date of his initial appointment till 30.11.2006. In view of the said circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent to release the salary to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment from 24.09.2002 to 30.11.2006, within a period of six weeks from today. Based on the above observations, this writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 22.4.2025 A Gautam ADITYA GAUTAM ADITYA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad